Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPPIL No. 2 of 2021
Vinay Dubey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others
29/07/2022 Heard Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate
General, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj,
learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3, Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4, Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, appearing for respondent No.8.
I.A. No.18 of 2022 is an application to permit the applicant to proceed with the works contained in Annexure-3/L. The works are as follows :
"1. Design, Build and Operation of 1 MLD STP at Naraiya Talab with 5 years O&M
2. Design, Build and Operation of 1 MLD STP at Kho-Kho, bandhwa & Prahaladwa Talab with 5 years O&M 2
3. Design, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of 3 MLD Compact Sewage Treatment Plant for Treatment of Influent of Maharajbandh Talab on advanced SBR/MBR/ MBBR/PHYTORIDE Technology including Operation and Maintenance of 5 years."
On 14.09.2021, this Court had passed the following order :
"Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1.
Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
None for respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG for Union of India/respondent No.8.
Heard on prayer for interim relief (I.A. No. 01/2020) Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the development of the urban area by and under the executive control of Smart City Limited, constituted for the development of Raipur and Bilaspur, does not denude the local 3 body namely Corporation of two cities and their authorities as provided under the Chhattisgarh Corporation Act, but the government's company has been carrying out development work without taking approval of various projects by the local body, which is statutorily mandated under the Municipal laws. He further submits that in a matter of development under the smart city project, the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act had to be complied with. Therefore, the projects which are being implemented by the Smart Cities of Raipur and Bilaspur are illegal and without the authority of law. He would pray that the projects in future be not allowed to function without due approval/procedure as required under the Constitution of India and Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act.
Mr. Siddique, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would submit that the projects of Smart City is being implemented under a nationally sponsored scheme framed by the Central Government in order to ensure 4 speedy development of identified cities and the modality of execution of plan for development of identified cities as Smart City and execution is in the realm of administrative function and is not open to challenge.
Learned ASG would submit that in the present case, the reply has not been filed by the Union of India so far, therefore, he may be granted time to file the reply.
Learned State counsel would submit that this case is required to be argued at length. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would submit that if any interim order is granted, it may affect the ongoing projects and very purpose for development of the cities under the Smart City Project.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and various submissions which have been made before us, we are of the opinion that looking to the very nature of the dispute raised before us and that under the Smart City Project, developments work of two cities have already 5 been undertaken by the agency, we are not inclined to pass any interim order in the ongoing projects. In case respondent Nos. 2 & 3 formulate future projects, it should be brought to the notice of this Court before its implementation.
Learned ASG is granted one last opportunity to file reply, if any, within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this matter after 6 weeks."
Subsequently, I.A. Nos. 4/2021, 5/2021, 6/2021, 8/2022, 10/22, 13/2022 and 14/2022 were filed.
By an order passed on 14.03.2022, this Court disposed of the aforesaid IAs providing that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 may go ahead with regard to the projects mentioned in the two annexures i.e. Annexure R-2/E of I.A. No. 13/2022 and Annexure R-3/F of I.A. No. 14/2022.
By another order dated 31.03.2022, I.A. Nos. 15/2022 and 16/2022 were allowed, permitting the applicants to issue work orders.
6
It is submitted by Mr. Bajaj that though earlier there was restriction put by the Government of India to issue work orders for the projects which could not be finalized within 31.03.2022, subsequently by letter dated 27.05.2022, accepting request of some Smart Cities, amongst others, relaxation has been granted for issuance of work orders till 31.07.2022 in respect of projects to be funded under Smart City Mission Grants, which had been tendered as on 31.03.2022 and it is in that circumstance, I.A. No. 18 of 2022 is filed as the three items listed therein were tendered prior to 31.03.2022 and as work orders are ready to be issued.
While not opposing I.A. No. 18/2022, Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Scheme of Smart City, as implemented in the State of Chhattisgarh, is in violation of Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam Act, 1956 and is violative of three tier democratic system of governance, as envisaged under Article 243 P to 243 ZC of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition is required to be disposed of at the earliest.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I.A. No. 18/2022 is allowed.
We are also of the considered opinion that an early disposal of the writ petition is called for.
7
Accordingly, we direct the Registry to list this case on 19.09.2022 for final hearing in the Part-I list.
I.A. No. 18/2022 stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra